Australian Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights still not happy with the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment (Public Interest Advocates and Other Matters)

Excerpts from Australian Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Human rights scrutiny report, 25 February 2016:

2.33 Accessing telecommunications data relating to a journalist, or their employer, where the purpose is to identify a journalist's source, together with the journalist information warrant and PIA scheme, engages and may limit multiple rights, including:

* right to an effective remedy;

* right to a fair hearing;

* right to privacy; and

* right to freedom of expression.

2.35 The committee considered that the journalist information warrant and PIA schemes seek to better promote the protection of privacy and the right to freedom of expression by prescribing a warrant process for accessing journalists' information, but that the regulation may lack sufficient safeguards to appropriately protect these rights, as well as the right to an effective remedy and a fair hearing. In particular:

* the regulation does not enable the PIA to seek instructions from any person affected by the journalist information warrant;

* the regulation grants the minister discretion to provide the PIA with only a summary of further information provided to the minister or issuing authority relating to proposed journalist information warrant requests or applications, despite the intention of the regulation being to ensure PIAs are able to advocate in the public interest; and

* the regulation provides no procedural guarantees to ensure the PIA is able to make a submission on an application for a journalist information warrant prior to the issuance of a warrant.

2.38 The committee thanks the Attorney-General for his response. 2.39 The committee acknowledges that the regulations introduce additional safeguards relating to the issuing of journalist information warrants under the Act and welcomes the commitment of the Attorney-General to fulfilling Australia's obligations under international human rights law.

2.40 The committee accepts that the PIA scheme forms an important safeguard in connection with applications for a journalist information warrant. However, the committee retains some concerns with the arrangement. Notification to journalist of a proposed request or application 2.41 The Attorney-General notes that it is appropriate that a PIA is unable to seek instructions from any person affected by the journalist information warrant because applications for a warrant are interim proceedings, ordinarily conducted on an ex parte basis. This is correct. However, it is unclear how a PIA will be able to effectively represent the interests of a person subject to the warrant in these circumstances, or provide information that will relevantly weigh on the issuing authority's determination as to whether to grant a warrant.

2.42 The Attorney-General justifies this measure by noting that a party who is given advance knowledge of the application may flee a jurisdiction, dispose of physical evidence, or alter or cease certain activities, so as to frustrate the investigation. These are legitimate concerns. However, the regulation includes a blanket prohibition on the PIA contacting any person affected by the journalist information warrant. Accordingly, there is no ability for the court to weigh up the risks and determine whether, in the circumstances of the particular warrant, it is necessary and appropriate for the PIA not to have contact with any person affected in order to protect national security and community safety. Indeed, even were a court to consider it was necessary or desirable for the PIA to seek instructions in any regard from an affected person, the court is unable to order or allow that to occur.

Australian Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Members:

The Hon Philip Ruddock MP, Chair Berowra, New South Wales, LP Mr Laurie Ferguson MP, Deputy Chair Werriwa, New South Wales, ALP Senator Carol Brown Tasmania, ALP Dr David Gillespie MP Lyne, New South Wales, NAT Ms Cathy McGowan AO MP Indi, Victoria, IND Senator Nick McKim Tasmania, AG Senator Claire Moore Queensland, ALP Senator Dean Smith Western Australia, LP Senator Barry O'Sullivan Queensland, NAT Mr Michael Sukkar MP Deakin, Victoria, LP

BACKGROUND

The Sydney Morning Herald, 24 January 2016:

Lawyers with no background in representing journalists have been tasked with defending journalists' sources in a secretive warrant process under new data retention laws, documents obtained under freedom of information laws reveal.

The documents show that a month into the job, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull wrote to retired judges Kevin Duggan and John Muir, appointing them as "public interest advocates". Although they are the only people able to argue against police requests for journalists' communications data in order to identify of a source, neither specialised in representing journalists or in media law.

The public interest advocate role was created under a last-minute amendment to the data retention legislation, meant to protect journalists and their sources from government access to their communications data.

Under the deal struck between the Coalition and the ALP, government agencies need a warrant before getting phone and internet data which would identify a journalist's source. But journalists are not notified that a warrant application has been made, and cannot argue against it. Instead, government-appointed public interest advocates are meant to make arguments about whether the public interest in the disclosure of the journalist's source outweighs the public interest in protecting source confidentiality.

Journalists face two years in jail if they reveal that a warrant has been sought. Justice Duggan is a criminal law specialist, who mostly presided over criminal trials during his 23 years on the South Australian Supreme Court. Justice Muir sat on the Queensland Supreme Court for 17 years.

In Malcolm Bligh Turnbull's Australia.....

It would appear that a modern-day version of slavey is flourishing in a quiet corner of this country.

ABC News, 26 February 2016:

A group of Pacific islanders are being paid less than $10 a week after deductions to pick fruit and vegetables on Australian farms by a company that sponsored their visas under a federally-run worker program.

The workers came to Australia in January as part of the Department of Employment's Seasonal Worker Program.

The group of 20 from Fiji, and others from Tonga, were taken to the caravan park in Merrigum, in the food bowl district of northern Victoria.

Most of the workers are taken by bus every morning to nearby tomato and apple farms.

They are here on 416 visas after signing contracts with AFS Contracting Pty Ltd, based in Shepparton.

Isikeli Fifita, one of the workers from Tonga, said after deductions — which included super, rent, health insurance, tax and transport — his total net pay was $9.96 for one week.

"I feel sad because there's no money to send to my family in Tonga," Mr Fifita said.

Petero Kanawabu said he expected long hours and hard work when he signed on to come to Australia under the program.

But said he, and many others in his group from Fiji, had been shocked by their payslips.

"I thought that we would come here and do a job, maybe save some money," Mr Kanawabu said.

"Even my mum cried when I told her my first payslip. I don't know what to do now."…..

Read the rest of the article here.

Homophobia rules in the Christensen universe

Photograph from The Sydney Morning Herald, 26 February 2016

George Christensen (Dawson, Liberal Party) Australian House of Representatives Hansard, 25 February 2016  via Open Australia:

I rise as a voice for the thousands of parents who have been shocked when they discovered how the ironically named Safe Schools program is indoctrinating their children. When those parents consider just how unsafe this program is, they will wonder why the federal government is allowing it to be implemented in schools, much less spending $8 million of taxpayer money to fund it.

The things that the Safe Schools Coalition Australia are recommending to school students include pornographic web content, sex shops, adult online communities and sex clubs. The Safe Schools 'All of Us' teaching resource directs students to the LGBT organisation Twenty10. On 19 January this year, Twenty10 hosted a hands-on workshop for youth on sex toys and sadomasochistic practices. All of Us also directs students to the website of the LGBT youth organisation Minus18, which produced most of the Safe Schools resources. Minus18 advised the students on chest binding, penis tucking, sex toys and sex advice such as 'penis-in-vagina sex is not the only sex and certainly not the ultimate sex'.

Minus18 links to The Tool Shed—an online pornographic sex shop offering a range of sex toys, sadomasochistic items and pornography. Minus18 recommends Scarleteen—a teen sex advice site that promotes group sex, sex toys and sadomasochism. Minus18 is an event partner with Melbourne gay bar the GH Hotel, which features erotic homosexual entertainment.

Safe Schools recommends the transgender organisation Seahorse Club Victoria, which in turn recommends the Abode fetish club. Abode is located at the same address as The Parlour Lounge sex club, which provides sadomasochistic entertainment and rooms for sex.

Safe Schools is funded via the Foundation for Young Australians, whose partner agencies implement the Safe Schools program. New South Wales partner Family Planning NSW offers detailed information on oral sex. Tasmanian partner Working It Out recommends YouTube channels featuring such things as 'Gay guy sees first transgender vagina' and 'Anal for FTMs'.

These links to sexually explicit web content and external organisations of an adult or erotic nature raise serious concerns about child safety. Further, Safe Schools provides instructions to children on how to hide their internet browsing history. It advises them to ask for restricted websites that are blocked at school—and would be blocked at home—to be unblocked by their teachers without parental knowledge.

If parents knew their children were being exposed to this type of material, they would probably not let them go to school. If someone proposed exposing a child to this material, the parents would probably call the police because it sounds a lot like the grooming work that a sexual predator might undertake. Child and Adolescent Sexual Assault Counselling Incorporated is a New South Wales peak body for child sexual assault counselling. This is how that body describes the process of grooming:

Sexualisation of the relationship through conversation and exposure of the child to sexual material such as images; taking undue interest in the child's sexual development; assuring the child of the rightness of what they are doing; telling the child the acts will not hurt them; alienating the child from their parents and family so that they do not feel close to them; and shaping the child's sexual preferences and manipulating what the child finds exciting.

That all sounds very familiar. The Safe Schools program focuses heavily on child and teenage sexual activity and sexual attractions; justifies almost any sexual activity; diminishes possible risks and harms; encourages young people to hide their activities from their parents; and provides links to adult sex clubs, adult online communities and sex shops. What is more, the program portrays all of this as normal and wraps it up in a taxpayer funded package and calls it an anti-bullying campaign. The Safe Schools program is in fact an unsafe schools program and it leaves students open to being groomed on websites advertising adult sex venues.

I commend the government for undertaking a review of this program and I call on schools using this program to immediately suspend it pending the outcome of that review. I urge all members of this House, particularly those with young children, to take a close look at what Safe Schools is delivering. I seek leave to table two documents—a diagram and an explanatory sheet illustrating the external links of the Safe Schools campaign.

Leave granted.

Australian Federal Election 2016: another opinion poll puts Labor & Coalition neck-and-neck on two party preferred vote distribution

As national polling of voter intentions begins to tighten, the Turnbull Government options are also narrowing.

The term of this House of Representatives expires on 11 November 2016 and, writs for a normal half-Senate election cannot be issued before 1 July 2016. 

Thus the first available date for a general election would be on or about 6 August 2016 - which would see Parliament dissolved and the Abbott-Turnbull Government in caretaker mode from as early as 21 June, approximately five weeks after delivering its third set of budget papers. 

Leaving Prime Minister Turnbull and Treasurer Morrison very little time to tweak any unpopular measures or errors found in their 2016-17 budget before Coalition MPs went on the campaign trail in their respective electorates.

As for a double dissolution. According to Antony Green's Election Blog:

A double dissolution of the House and the Senate under Section 57 of the Constitution cannot take place within 6 months of the end of the House's term. That means a double dissolution must be granted by 11 May 2016. Allowing for the maximum campaign shown above, the last possible date for a double dissolution election is 16 July 2016.

This timetable leaves Turnbull less than seventy days to create a situation which the Governor-General could view as urgently supporting the dissolution of both the House of Representatives and the full Senate.

Such an election would also see the Abbott-Turnbull Government in caretaker mode within days of tabling this year's budget papers.

Latest Essential Report, 1 March 2016: